Commentary

The Master Debater; An Rx for Intellectual Diversity

The Master Debater

Over the past two weeks, President Bush and Senator Kerry participated in three presidential debates that were instrumental in helping undecided voters get a better feel for each candidate. Senator Kerry was and always will be the more masterful ‘bater when compared to Bush, who admitted his rhetorical shortcomings before America. But the true measure of success in the debates must be their effect on public opinion of the two candidates.

For Kerry, the debates were his last chance to shake Bush’s hold over battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Yet, days after the end of the debates, Ohio and Florida are still polling for Bush. Pennsylvania is a toss-up, and if Bush wins it, it will spell certain doom for the Kerry candidacy. It is questionable that pundits call all three debates a “win” for Senator Kerry when in fact his strategic goals are completely unmet with only days left before the election. Certainly, Democratic strategists would not say in their own meetings “all we need to do is win the debate, the polls are irrelevant.” Nor will Kerry remember the debates as a victory when he returns to his Senate career on November 3rd.

The Source recently featured the highlights of the first foreign policy debate—from which readers need only remember the “Global Test.” Bush was definitely not running on all cylinders during this first showing, but the next in the series was his strongest.

Bush did well standing up to Kerry’s attacks. When Kerry attacked Bush on fiscal responsibility, the President pointed out Kerry’s own unreasonable proposal: “He’s proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending, and he says he’s going to tax the rich to close the tax gap. He can’t. He’s going to tax everybody here to fund his programs. That’s just reality.” The President’s performance was enhanced by his strong presence on stage. Without a podium to hide his posture, he seemed strong and passionate as he spoke. Kerry looked like Frankenstein on stilts as he droned on and on about the nuances of his policy. When asked to look into the camera and speak simply about his policies, Kerry started his hand waving routine, leaving the audience to wonder about his sincerity and his message.

The third and final debate was more of the same and was not sufficient competition to capture attention of Sox fans from the game. Domestic policy was the highlight, but many issues were glossed over, so the depth of understanding for viewers was indeed minimal. In a single exchange, candidates addressed affirmative action, which was a major campaign issue of 2000.

The debates were more of a battle than either campaign would have asked for. Little ground was won or lost, but policy commitments were made. For Bush, this is only an affirmation of his record, but for Kerry, commitment to one side of an issue can be disastrous given his tendency to flip-flop.

An Rx for Intellectual Diversity

Dr. Leon Kass, the chairman of the President’s Committee on Bioethics, inaugurated the Snyder lecture series, hailed by President Bacow as a new opportunity to attract controversial speakers to campus. Dr. Kass led a lecture called Endless Bodies, Timeless Souls and brought the voice of a moderate conservative to the hill, helping to bring intellectual diversity to the campus.

Hopefully, President Bacow realizes this token moderate fell short of fulfilling the vision that, “a great university embraces diversity of every dimension and that includes diversity of ideas.” This speaker far from fills the absence of academic conservatism at Tufts, but did provide an alternate perspective to the University’s prevailing thought on bioethics.

The lecture provided an overview of the tools available in science now and in the near future to drastically alter the way Americans live and the ethical questions that surround using them. Many might have been expecting a discussion about stem cell research, but Dr. Kass suggested that there were more crucial ramifications to be considered in the realm of human enhancement and replacement.

Kass presented a long-winded consideration of many ethical dilemmas in a format designed to provoke thought about the subject rather than bombard the attendees with facts and figures. At the end, Dr. Kass raised several interesting questions about human modification such as the merit of living well versus living long, the effects longevity would have on youth and reproduction, and how enhancements might change the very essence of being human or as he put it, “to turn a man into a cockroach would be dehumanizing, to make him more might be the same.”

His presentation was very level-headed and possibly even lacked the fire and controversy that President Bacow might have envisioned for the series. Although at times, as was evident during the question and answer period, a politically moderate speaker was about as much as the crowd could handle. Several people in the audience attempted to ask questions to embarrass the professor or make President Bush look soft on stem cell research, but Dr. Kass knew the facts well and refuted every claim made by audience members. He even pointed out how a 1995 Congressional act prohibited stem cell research and President Bush was the first to allow any funding to occur.

Dr. Kass believes that the way President Bush has proceeded with federal stem cell research is a “sensible moral position” that allows stem cells that have already been killed to be used for research purposes. He also pointed out that the lines of cells that President Bush made available must be used to show that there really is a medical promise in the realm of embryonic stem cells rather than simply believing the political hype from the likes of John Edwards. Kass shares no illusions that if John Kerry is president, people like the late Christopher Reeve will walk again. Maybe Edwards should file a suit against himself for false advertising.

Many points made by the speaker have also been made recently by articles in THE PRIMARY SOURCE—which makes one wonder why the University scarcely values the contributions of this magazine. Though the SOURCE may have been unable to convince readers with its lack of in-house expertise, Dr. Kass certainly brought clout to the argument that scientific advancement must be balanced with the value of human life.